What happened to the guns belonging to Bibi's guards?

Is anyone else as skeptical about this story as I am?We're being told that guns belonging to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's SHABAK executive protection detail turned up missing after the PM's party had to change planes at JFK on the way to Washington D.C. to meet with President Obama.I'm certainly not privy to any inside information, but somehow my gut tells me this story stinks. There just seem to be too many elements that defy logic.

First, there's the very premise of a foreign head of state arriving in the U.S. on a chartered jetliner (Israel does not currently have the equivalent of Air Force One) having to land first at JFK and change planes en route to Washington; Really?

Then there's the notion of that head of state's bodyguards surrendering their weapons to the care of U.S. authorities, and said weapons being treated as mere baggage (and as so often happens to mere baggage, getting "lost" in the process).

Not only is SHABAK the equivalent, in dedication, discipline and training, to our Secret Service, but our Secret Service (and state security services all over the free world) are trained in techniques and methods used by SHABAK.

Frankly, it strikes me as a bogus story calculated to make Netanyahu and SHABAK (also known as Shin Bet), and Israel itself, look incompetent and foolish.

It reminds me of Hillary Clinton telling how she and Chelsea would "ditch" their Secret Service detail and "sneak out of the White House" (or her telling how the Secret Service allowed her to be exposed to "sniper fire" in Bosnia).

When I first heard Hillary chuckling over how she and Chelsea "outsmarted" the Secret Service, the needle on my "stink-meter" went right into the red zone. The same thing happened when I heard about Bibi's team's missing guns.

My gut, and my understanding of the dedication and attention to detail with which executive protection details function, tells me that these things simply did not happen, because the people charged with executive protection simply would not have permitted them to happen.

Is anyone else as skeptical about this story as I am?

We're being told that guns belonging to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's SHABAK executive protection detail turned up missing after the PM's party had to change planes at JFK on the way to Washington D.C. to meet with President Obama.

I'm certainly not privy to any inside information, but somehow my gut tells me this story stinks. There just seem to be too many elements that defy logic.

First, there's the very premise of a foreign head of state arriving in the U.S. on a chartered jetliner (Israel does not currently have the equivalent of Air Force One) having to land first at JFK and change planes en route to Washington; Really?

Then there's the notion of that head of state's bodyguards surrendering their weapons to the care of U.S. authorities, and said weapons being treated as mere baggage (and as so often happens to mere baggage, getting "lost" in the process).

Not only is SHABAK the equivalent, in dedication, discipline and training, to our Secret Service, but our Secret Service (and state security services all over the free world) are trained in techniques and methods used by SHABAK.

Frankly, it strikes me as a bogus story calculated to make Netanyahu and SHABAK (also known as Shin Bet), and Israel itself, look incompetent and foolish.

It reminds me of Hillary Clinton telling how she and Chelsea would "ditch" their Secret Service detail and "sneak out of the White House" (or her telling how the Secret Service allowed her to be exposed to "sniper fire" in Bosnia).

When I first heard Hillary chuckling over how she and Chelsea "outsmarted" the Secret Service, the needle on my "stink-meter" went right into the red zone. The same thing happened when I heard about Bibi's team's missing guns.

My gut, and my understanding of the dedication and attention to detail with which executive protection details function, tells me that these things simply did not happen, because the people charged with executive protection simply would not have permitted them to happen.